It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Investigative Journalist Attacked on Camera

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 06:00 AM
Scumbags should be put out of their misery by the law.

This reporter was up their derriere for quite awhile. He got what he deserved.

Now, the reporter is on Bill O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes, etc whining about the beating. :shk:
HE overstepped his boundaries.

And to the person who said he was a consumer advocate? NO HE ISNT>

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 06:53 AM
The guy got what he deserved, eh? He had no right to be there harassing those people, eh?

So I guess the same applies to embedded reporters in a war zone. Or those reporters giving us the story of Rwanda, etc.

While we're at it, why don't we shoot whistleblowers on the spot?

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 06:44 PM
Embedded journalists? You're comparing apples with oranges.

I dont know the procedure for a journalist to be in the middle of a war but i would assume there are many legalities to that.

I dont get the comparison.

These "citizens" that go after "citizens" should be ready to get their arses kicked, as i am sure those embedded use proper protective gear, helmets, camouflage, etc.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 08:51 PM

Originally posted by TheBorg

And how is this not misconstrued as a biased argument on the part of the investigative journalist? Doesn't it seem funny to anyone but me that this reporter only listens to the "victim", and intentionally instigates confrontations with a woman that has not been convicted of any crime? The fact that that reporter has one of the supposed victims of this scam with him tells me that this journalist is denying his own objectivity in his investigation. Seems to me as though he has already decided who's guilty and who's not.

The reporter had repeatedly tried to gte the other side of the story. He started off nicely simply asking for interviews. His phone calls were ignored, and the meetings were met with, rather displeasing results. The man did not even want to give his side of the story after the reporter attempted to ask him for it politly.

So why continue to harrass her until the courts decide her fate? That's the job of the courts, not a citizen.

Noone was even harrassing the woman. They were trying to do their reporting on a CRIME when she continued to thrust herself forcefully and fiercly into the spotlight. Of course she was hysterical because she would not even calm down for them to have a simple Q&A when she came rampaging through. They were doing their job, she came upon them and harrassed them during their report.

This doesn't necessitate the actions taken by the reporter. Simply showing the evidence available would have been enough, which the news station had already done. It should have ended there.

I suppose that is a reasonable conclusion. Of course that one extra report could have meant the difference between a customs or security official recognizing the man if he tried to flee the country. Just speculation on my part, but thankfully we do not have to worry about that now.

Cameramen are directed by the reporters doing the report, so it's the fault of both of them for the actions taken. The reporter could have told the cameraman to shut it down at anytime, but he didn't. That makes it his fault as well.

I did not really see or hear the reporter direct the cameraman to follow her, but he was wrong in doing so either way.

That's a good point I suppose. She should have stayed away from the site. However, if like you said, they own the site, then she has every right to be there, and the media does not. In which case, yet again, the beating taken was deserved.

The site is owned illegally, so technically it can be considered a crime scene. If the police are not telling them to stay away, I suppose they have a right to being there.

Well, hopefully we are kept updated as the case moves along. I would like to find out what kind of time criminals like these get. I understand what the books state you CAN get, but what the books state and what is handed down is quite different almost every single time.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:08 PM
Why am I not surprised there are people who would side with the criminals? The man had a criminal history and has threatened other people as well. He had also assaulted neighbors and a shop owner. Investigative reporters don't investigate good people. Get real. Anyone who is not a scumbag does not need to worry about these reporters. Violent people are the scum of the earth and deserve any bad thing that happens to them. Anyone who believes differently should seek psychiatric help before you hurt innocent people.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:13 PM
How anyone can say the reporter got what he deserved is beyond me, are you people serious? They can investigate anyone they want, heck even I can investigate you as long as I don't try and gain access to private information. And If I find something I can confront you about it, if you don't like it tough, you have no right to attack someone else like that.

posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 01:11 AM
Well if i understood the story correctly these ppl were buying these properties using stolen identities so i dont see how they could legally own the property.Im not a lawyer but i think at least the husband will get some time for this latest assault.

posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 02:45 AM

Originally posted by WestPoint23
How anyone can say the reporter got what he deserved is beyond me, are you people serious? They can investigate anyone they want, heck even I can investigate you as long as I don't try and gain access to private information. And If I find something I can confront you about it, if you don't like it tough, you have no right to attack someone else like that.

And if you get in my face while investigating me, even though I warned you to stop repeatedly, that's called harrassment, and if you get too close, can be considered assault. Based on that, I can defend myself as I see fit.

If, in the case of this situation, it means beating the reporter in question into a pulp, that's the suspect's perrogative, since it was the reporter's perrogative to take up such a dangerous job, when the evidence was speaking for itself. It's even amplified if the land he was standing on belonged to them. Then, legally, they can beat him, and kick him all the way to the curb.


Edited for P.S.


It should be said that I don't agree that this man is in any position to be relegated as a hero or anything like that. I just think that he had the right to defend himself and his property(provided it IS his), as well as those he cares about. I in NO WAY am siding with a criminal because he/she is one. I'm merely siding with the idea of defending oneself.

I'm just amazed that people think they can be just as obnoxious as ever without any fear of retribution. People forget easily how little it takes to tick others off. Harrassment is a crime, just like fraud is. Should we start sticking mics in this reporter's face, following him to his home, just to assertain his innocence/guilt?

Where will it end?

[edit on 9-9-2006 by TheBorg]

posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 03:12 AM
in reference to the pscho attacking the reporter. Another example of how violence is used in this country to settle problems. Complete lack of self control by the psycho here. Violence in this country is so common that people have become accustomed to it. Seldon do we get a chance to really see the violence up close and personal like this attack, which makes it all the more pathetic. Athumbs down: to the psycho here. Did you see in his hand he had something that he was holding when he slammed into the reporters head? Looked like a big cell phone or something like that. The guy is a punk to sucker punch the reporter. What a wimp and puss to sucker punch anyone. The news media type people are not what you would call really macho types and it is not in their personality to 'go off' like the psycho did so how can he defend himself? Answer is he wimps out and gets his ass kicked. I don't like to see it and it is is an assualt and batter, simple as that. I don't want to hear anyone on this board start talking stupid about how this reporter deserved getting his ass kicked or whatever. The man is doing his job and he was doing it well. It takes balls to do what he did without a weapon and holdoing a mic. Not many of us have the guts to do what he did. my hat is off to him, the camera man and the good citizen who pulled the psycho off him. we need more people like him out there, not macho punk ass bitches likes the psycho and his pissy miss tits girl friend (but what a nice babe she is). case closed, assault and batter charges on the pycho and assualt charges on Miss tits. and a nice rack she had indeed.... too bad that the psycho won't be putting his hands on those beautiies.... we all have to think twice before we start swinging... we will be missing those nice mammiaries if we got to go off to county for a year....... peace out
TextText Blue

posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 03:21 AM

Please refrain from the insecure tone with which you graced this thread. It's obvious that you have no other objective here than to complain at those people with a sensible nature. I think it's unfair to prejudge someone. Who declared him guilty? I know the courts haven't. Last time I checked, this was a country founded on morals of "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around.

Until the courts decide his fate, he's innocent, and should maintain the same rights as any other free civilian. These rights include the right to privacy, and to not be harrassed by anyone outside of the courtroom. That reporter took his own fate into his own hands when he went after the suspect's wife. That kind of reckless reporting is what got him into that mess, not the fact that the guy was suspected of being a scam artist. He had also previously recieved threats from this individual, so he's now sticking himself into a situation, just ASKING for him to follow through with those threats. Sounds to me like the reporter's the one that's psycho here, don'tcha think?


posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 06:59 AM
This is the beauty about ATS. Let me say that i do not side with the criminals. Of course, they have not been judged by a judge or jury yet, so i dont know if they are criminals yet or not.
Should they be condemned before the legal process? NO.
They're just citizens and a lot of you are quick to pass judgement right now before due process. That is not right. This is still America.

As far as the reporter nicely going after the beginning...The reporter got what he deserved. His assss kicked royally by someone who did not want to be harrased...who resented it. I'm sure it was worth the extra jail time to those people
I think the journalist (that whining baby) should do time himself for aggravating and stalking people. If there was true justice, he'd also be in jail.

posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 08:39 AM
People, how can you consider this harrassment? they stopped seeking out the guilty parties and simpyl began doing their report on one of their illegal properties. The criminals threw themselves into the spotlight, and when the reporter was simply trying to have a civil dialogue, these people cannot act civily. Whos being harrassed by whom?

If you own a property illegally, you do not have rights to that property. Just like being an illegal immigrant.

THEY DID NOT COME AFTER THE WIFE! She came out of nowhere and began assaulting them verbally and disrespectfully throwing water at them. The cameraman acted on his own probably wanting t get another good look at the pretty lady when the husband came out. If yuo should condone a beating on anyone, it should be the cameraman.

posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 08:54 AM
Can be deadly.

He's living proof. You dont think he just sat there for 5 minutes and then proceeded with the taping did you?
I'm sure he spent day and night stalking these people, harrasing and making phone calls from the car and making their lives a living hell. My husband (white American Marine) would have done more damage than that.

I think some people agree with the reporter just because they are foreigners and that is just not right.

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 02:50 AM

Originally posted by DYepes
If you own a property illegally, you do not have rights to that property. Just like being an illegal immigrant.

That's the point here though DYepes; we don't know that they ARE guilty of owning said properties illegally. That's what the case is all about. Until the case has been decided, then neither we nor the reporters can make any move onto the property in question, unless previously authorized to do so by those that possess the deed to it. The law is a tricky thing; one that needs to be carefully adhered to in times of trial, such as this.


posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 07:01 AM
If this investigative reporter was worth his salt he would have been investigating the criminal activities of big business or the government, or for that matter someone that has actually been convicted of a crime but getting away with too little punishment. I guess it's ok to risk getting hit in the face by bothering small time crooks instead of going after people who can simply make you disappear ( or have you commit suicide with a rifle) since it is after all just about making a name for yourself and not exposing noteworthy crime. The fact that TV stations will broadcast this sort of nonsense but deny air time to those who do serious journalism is what we should actually be talking about but since 'If it bleed it leads' i can only hope it's the average journalist who covers nothing but useless nonsense that does most of the bleeding. How many Journalist have died in Iraq trying to expose the crimes of the occupiers? THAT's journalism and that's why so little true journalism get's done in this worl.


posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 08:44 AM
Alright, so everyone is making with the judgements, so here is a case that came to my attention, based on the facts presented below how would you investigate it? What would be your judgement and action?

S. R. (he's here on myspace: male, 24, south pasadena) Has this thing he did when he was at THQ in Calabasas, he decided he didn't like this one old guy in testing, so he complained that the guy was sexually harrassing the receptionist, it was complete bull#t. The old guy was fired without being told why.

Later while S. was trying to get a job at Vivendi Universal Games, he tried the same thing while interviewing, even yelling across the department when he saw the old guy, S. didn't get the job, but the old guy was fired without being told why.

Then the old guy was hired at EALA, and ran into S. and was all nice and friendly like. S. ran to the Director of H.R. and said that the old guy had been fired from THQ and Vivendi for sexual harrassment and other B.S.. The old guy was fired on his second day on the job, without being told why.

That wasn't good enough for S. though, he had to go onto forums (no longer working) and post more #### hoping the old guy would never work in the games industry again. Interesting note: Everytime S. and his friends posted something on Fatbabies, they couldn't provide documenation or any kind of proof whatsoever, in other words, everything they said was a LIE!

The old guy found out about S. and his activities through an intercepted e-mail S.s friend sent to EALA:

From: Y., J. [] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:06 PM To: T., D.; K., R. Subject: Warning about one of your new testers... Hey guys, J. here. Just wanted to warn you about AN OLD GUY, who I heard was recently hired by your QA dept. He worked with one of your current testers, S., at THQ and caused some trouble there from what I heard and he had some extreme drama with our QA dept and our legal dept due to behavior with other testes and from what he posted on public message boards. He then went on to Activision, where he reportedly got fired after two weeks. I heard that he was hired over on your end a couple of days ago and I heard through the grape vine that S. had warned you about him, so he might be already fired, but I just wanted to give you extra warning to keep a close eye on him, just in case he was still working for you. He was always nice to me, but from the verbal and written altercations he got in with several testers, he sounds like he has many issues to take care of.

Well the problems at Vivendi were initialy caused by a small group of testers who were J.s and by extension - S.s friends. The "altercations" took place AFTER the old guy was fired as J. and his pals waited outside the building so they could give the old guy a hard time as he left in disgrace, nothing says it better than to rub it in right? Kick em when they're down baby!

The posting on the "public message boards? It was a private, vetted users only forum, an employee of Vivendi named B. H. allowed management at Vivendi to enter this restriced space, B. was banned from the website for that activity.

Legal Department? They were pissed because the old guy refused to sign an extension of the Non Disclosure Agreement AFTER he had been told he was being terminated. You see, the moment the employer tells you that you are terminated, then you don't have to comply with anything the employer wants. It's legal, it's contract law. The old guy also posted a picture of one of the biggest trouble makers at Vivendi online. Vivendi's Legal Counsel in a nice polite phone call enforced their legal right to coyright and the picture was taken down, no problem, but the guy does look something like Gregory Scott Haidl. Turns out the guy in the picture is the "roomate" of the companies male Paralegal. Of course this is all "extreme drama" according to J., so how does he define backstabbing with intent to cost others their right to an income? Libel, slander and a conspiracy to commit defamation of character? Oh yeah, it's J. and his friend S. and their social group doing it so it's okay!

The old guy was fired from Activision because of a friend of J.'s who had worked at Activision, told them they should, kinda like the e-mail. You gotta love networking and social groups! Now of course all this trouble for the old guy seems to have grown because of this one S. R.. The big question surrounding S. is ... IF THQ, Inc never tells anyone why their employment is terminated, not even the contracted outside employment agency, Then how on earth does a lowly Games Tester like S. have access to all this Human Resources data?

NOTE: The Old Guy could not get any Lawyers to handle a civil case because the individuals involved did not make enough money to be able to satisfy a judgement.
The companies were exempt due to California's "AT-WILL" employment laws.

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 01:37 AM

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
NOTE: The Old Guy could not get any Lawyers to handle a civil case because the individuals involved did not make enough money to be able to satisfy a judgement.
The companies were exempt due to California's "AT-WILL" employment laws.

Well, I don't really see how this applies to the thread, but I'll bite.

The thing most amazing to me here is the fact that this old guy just took this kind of behavior, instead of beating the living crap out of those guys. If he has proof that he's being harrassed out of a job by several other people, then he could file all of the charges that were listed in the previous post against those guys. It's truly scary what can pass for good business practice, and what passes for gossip. What's even scarier is the fact that thsoe two often meet in the middle.

Truly scary indeed,


posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 09:17 AM
The Suleimans appeared in court for a bail hearing yesterday and pled not guilty to charges stemming from the filmed attack on investigative reporter John Mattes.

A husband and wife accused of attacking a local TV reporter investigating the couple's real estate dealings pleaded not guilty Tuesday to assault, battery and other charges.

Defense attorney Samantha Mann told the judge that he was not getting the whole story because the entire incident involving Suleiman, his wife and Mattes was not shown on television.

(Judge) Szumowski allowed Barraza to remain free on $78,000 bail, but increased Suleiman's bail from $35,000 to $200,000.


[edit on 13-9-2006 by Icarus Rising]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in